Talk:List of The New 52 imprint publications

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of The New 52 imprint publications is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on April 13, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2014Featured list candidatePromoted

Changes in the table[edit]

This is an expansion of the discussion that has started on the The New 52 talk page. The main topics were in regards to the creative teams and the No. Issues column. There are headings below for each so please state you opinion for each below. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creative team[edit]

I feel that this section has gotten to large with all of the changes that have been make to some books. I think it would be good if just the current teams were used in the columns and then updated as needed when they are changed. For discontinued books, maybe include all of the members, if there are not many, and if so, just the one with the longest run. I'm not really sure. I'd like to hear the other opinions. I would though, like to keep something in regards to the creative teams. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, if the current method seems too long, I'd change it from Creative team to Creators or Initial creative team. As they were the driving force behind the creation of the series and historically probably more notable. Also the less updating you have to do the better.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The initial team seems best since it's consistent and doesn't require updating. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its been over a month, I think its time this change should be made.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since there are two columns, what if one was the creators, and the second is the current "team" (not worrying about guest writers or artists)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think consolidating the two columns into one for the initial team should be fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay. I will get to work on this. It may be a couple of days because I will try to move any additional creative team info to the books' individual pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, how should we deal with a book where more than one writer or artist started, but one of them dropped sooner than the other? Should they both be included based on a set number of issues, or only the one that stayed longer? I figured both but just wanted to ask. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's also an issue with listing pencillers, inkers, and colorerers. In some places, we list all three - because they've shared duties or did other things in other issues. I'm looking at the Nightwing entry right now, and it's a big blob of mess when looking through the actual issues. || Tako (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think that those could just be added under the artist table. Should we just go to DC's site and look at all of the #1 issue credits and just list everything that is stated there? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think so, yes. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You could just put their title in parenthesis next to their name, all in one "initial team" column.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sounds good! I'm going to try to get all of the info transfered over to individual pages if it is not already there, and then start this reduction. If anyone would like to help, it would be appreciated! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This arrangement of creative teams was better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_New_52_publications&oldid=534820732 Please rebuild. 188.100.162.147 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current version has clear consensus, gives the page a much cleaner look, and does not need to be constantly updated. More in-depth creative team info is better for the individual articles, as noted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I have just consolidated all creative team info, as we have talked about, into one column, of just the initial team that started on issue 1 for each book. Those would be the Writers, and either Pencillers and Inkers, or both of those covered under Artists (these are who are credited on the covers so I thought that was sufficient).

In addition, I changed the Notes column to Notes / References, to include any references for the title. I was not sure if all of the titles should add a reference to the DC page for its #1 issue, since that is what I used to get the creative team info.

I also added a note to the heading stating that if more info regarding the creative team is desired, to see the individual pages. Currently, I have updated or added info boxes to all of the Justice League family titles. I would like to continue on with the other titles, but if anyone else would like to tackle a group, that would be much appreciated. (Also, I know this discussion isn't for here, but the constancy between the individual pages is abismal, at least regarding the info boxes used and the information within them and the page. That is something that I feel should be addressed.)

If anyone has any questions regarding this edit, add them here, but I hope that this is satisfactory. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Issues column[edit]

I am fine with it the way it is. I've been updating it for the past month or so, so I have no objection to it. But again, I'm open to figuring out another way to make it work if others want. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone suggested changing it to just say "Ongoing" or else listing the final count for ones which are canceled. I think this is a better option than updating it constantly. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be okay with changing all issue numbers to "Ongoing" or final count for cancelled ones. Would it be worth keeping/noting the issues that had the #0 issues and annuals released? -Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's that important with regards to the list. I think the publications which are notable should have articles created for them though, and those articles could discuss the annuals/zero issues (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#The_New_52_articles). --Odie5533 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read what you suggested at the WikiProject page, and I completely agree with your statement and observation. I feel that if that issue can be worked out, then the few things we are talking about here, will fall into place. Maybe these topics can be kept on the back-burner and be revisited when we have a better idea of how to represent the New 52 info on the individual pages? -Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was rethinking about this, and thought that we could remove this column entirely, and add any issue info in the notes section, for the time being. So for Discontinued books, it would say "Cancelled with issue #." and then add "A #0 issue was published" or "1 annual was published" if needed. And then for with Current titles, we could just add the 0 issue or annual info in the notes. I thought this might be a good solution for the time being, but I do feel that we need to look at all of the info in the table and see if there is a way to organize it better. Anyways, thoughts on this? -Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the notes column should actually be removed. I think having an Ongoing entry in the column makes it clearer. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Notes column[edit]

I think the notes column should be remove since it will tend towards the addition of trivia. Any relevant information could be added to the individual articles, or in the case of a title changes like for Nuclear Man, an actual footnote could be used for that one case. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem fine, to include footnotes for any relevant info. In my opinion, that would be title change and then when solicits are announced if a title is going to be cancelled. Also, any book that has a back up, the creative team can go with the regular team if deemed necessary. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table reformatting[edit]

I've reformatted the table along the method I proposed a couple of weeks ago, seeing as that appeared to be a suitable compromise. I've added the descriptions to the main New 52 page and organized the titles by Wave, then by Family. This is intended to ease navigation. It's my intention, as also mentioned in the compromise, to add the ongoing/currently-in-print list of titles as a textual list to the main New 52 page. This list of Waves would then be the list of all current/discontinued/upcoming titles. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not the New 52 article. I see no consensus to make any of your proposed changes for this article. I don't agree with either change: the reorganization into waves or the automatic hiding of the tables. Reorganizing into waves means we have way more tables, e.g. 4x Justice Leagues and 5x The Edge. Automatically hiding all of the tables presents accessibility concerns. Reading the page in FANGS indicates that it may be extremely difficult for people with screen readers to read the table now. Rather than splitting the wave tables by family, perhaps a single table for each wave, and then have the family listed in a column? This would greatly reduce the number of tables. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we can't (or at least shouldn't) use wave(s) for splitting the table. The waves in all cases are not a definitive thing. DC hasn't used the term too much since the second wave, I think. The 'Fourth Wave' just had a passing reference in a weekly news collection collection their blog, and didn't even include Constantine. Yet, we erroneously include the book in the Fourth Wave. || Tako (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I, as has been stated by everyone above me, agree that we can't split by waves as there would be too many tables. As well, I see no reason to have the tables hidden. As to Odie's idea of a single table for wave, as it currently is, each book has the wave listed next to them, in alpha order per wave. (So First Wave titles, followed by any second wave etc.) I feel this is fine in keeping all family titles together as well as indicating which wave they premiered in and the month of first publication. I just feel that the changes by Pejorative are not warranted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten. Please view my sandbox to see the proposal.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This new version seems to just be a reworking of the table with the same information conveyed. In the version in your sandbox, as well as the previous version, it seems to be putting more emphasis on the the waves, where as, I feel, the emphasis should be on the status of the book, as the current version is showing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I reworked it to place status second, after family. Family > Status > Title > Wave > Release > Contributors > Notes. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new version looks much better. I can see benefits to having the new sandbox version or the one currently on the page, so I'm going to say I'm neutral about the change, and if others think your version is better then I'd be fine with it changing. At this point, I still think the tables have too much data, but no real consensus was found in the discussion I made above. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I replaced most of the notes with a combined Release date/issue count column to cut it down somewhat. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really can't support the primary listing by Wave, as I mentioned before, we can't confirm or backup the claims for the newer waves, especially since DC hasn't been forcing the term like with the Second Wave. || Tako (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The primary listing is by Family. And while hype about the term "wave" has died down, there's no disputing that they pull titles and release replacement titles in bundles. "Wave" is the already established nomenclature for the bundles. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except, we run into issues where DC cancels and publishes a book across various months, Is the addition of the two political titles in May a different wave from large group of books premiering in June? The month/waves stuff should be kept as they are now, the Wave should only be mentioned if there is an actual reputable source that mentions a new wave. DC hasn't announced a 'Fifth Wave' - though they have announced multiple cancellations and new books across two months. || Tako (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is already precedent of waves existing across multiple months, eg. the first wave. The fact is they remain bundled - every cancellation is followed by a new title and -so far, at any rate- cancellations have not been a one-off item. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the columns around a little to meet consensus. Have a look and let me know. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this seems even less of a change, only moving the status from a left to right heading, to a top to bottom heading. I still don't see any need for the changes you are suggesting. I agree with Odie that if we can work on cutting down the content and figuring out what we want in the table, then at that point we could consider a reformat. But until then, I don't think there is need for a change. Also, the current version has better accessibility in its formatting, as Current, Discontinued, and Upcoming are each linked within each family. These changes may have more weight if the info is reworked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Took that into consideration and moved things around a little. It's cleaner and more organized than the current iteration. Have a look.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like this edit the best. Just a few minor things. I don't think each table should be collapsable, keep it as a single table. And the only other thing, in the publication column, put the Wave before the release date (like it is now), followed by thw issue numbers. Also, the Justice League book premiered in August 2011, not September 2011. Other than that, I am fine with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Favre for the most part, it might be a good idea to keep the Family table separate. Mostly for editing purposes. It's a pain when you're editing a Family section and you can't preview your changes properly, because the table doesn't format because the initial table heading isn't there. || Tako (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Took another whack at it. Have a look. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time reference[edit]

Just a question - why "future" and not "present"? I know that issues are planned out four to five months in advance, but the issues currently published are in the present, not the future. And it has occurred in the past where an artist is planned, but changes due to delays/overruns/etc. Or a series is just yanked after a couple of issues, so "future" would seem less applicable. More like "for the forseeable future" but "present" would seem to suffice as far as publication. 206.39.250.30 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to question this/make this change. You are correct that all books being published should say "present". The "future" label should only be used for announced creative teams that will take over future issues. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember to avoid relative time references.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Batman/Superman[edit]

Batman/Superman belongs to the Superman family group, not the Justice League group. http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=44177 79.224.47.215 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Suicide Squad's artist never changed?[edit]

Marco Rudy was the artist for the first issue. Since then, many other artists have been doing the series, Dallocchio, Guara, Dagnino, Jonsson etc...

I see that other series have all of their artists listed issue by issue, not that I am asking for this.

At least maybe edit it so Suicide Squad lists the latest artist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.96.192 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Favre1fan93 is working on a solution to the creative team crisis. I guess wait on word for him. || Tako (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion we have been having above, we will eventually just have the initial creative team info here, based on the info found on DC's page, and all subsequent creative team info will be added or moved to each books respective page. So for the time being, if the creative team info can be kept at status quo, it will all be taken care of. I currently have gone through the Justice League family of moving over creative team info and hope to continue with the other groups in the coming days. If you would like to update the Suicide Squad page with any missing creative team info in the info box for volume 4, that would be helpful and appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes/References[edit]

I understand the cleanup of the creative teams, but the footnotes should have some textual reference in the Notes box if they are to be used. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes section[edit]

User PhoenixOroboros has been adding a lot of "Focusing on" info to the notes section of titles and I noticed Takuy's comment in an edit, that I agree with: do we need all of these for each title? I think, if any, there should be inclusion for team based books, and books in which there have been multiple incarnations of the character (ex Batgirl and The Flash). If the title says who the character is (ie Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Superman), I don't see the need to further state that the book is about them. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the things PhoenoxOroboros has been adding are trivial, absolutely pointless, and are not focused on the topic of the article at all. A book which which has a titular character does not need a deep explanation. There doesn't need to be a thorough analysis or discussion about the character. It's an article about the books - not the characters in the books. A short line noting the 'when' (in case of the first arc of Action Comics, Demon Knights) would be okay, back ups too, right now, it's too much. || Tako (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think they may have gotten "inspiration" from my large reformat edit. I just added for the Green Lantern books which Lanterns they follow, because in those cases, you can't tell from the title of the book. Would you or other editors be opposed to a strong revert to this edit (revision on the left), and only add "notes" on books that are teams or are not easily distinguished from the title (ie, if you can click the book title, and it can't easily tell you who the main character(s) of the book are)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed. It desperately needs a revert or a copy edit (or both). Bringing back some of the back-up information. Some of the notes do have some value...just not the majority of them. I guess each title individually needs to be examined on what can be and should be featured or cleared up by the notes section. || Tako (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go through and make my edits now. If you think I miss anything or took something out that was need, feel free to do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, PhoenixOroboros seems to keep reverting back to the description part, despite notes here and in edit notes. I'm a revert away from 3Rs. Going to revert once more, then I will leave it to somebody who knows the rules better. I believe consensus is on my side, as above, but I don't want to inadvertently mess anything up! Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 10:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine you can all die if you ask me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixOroboros (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can't say I didn't try to be constructive and offer advice on your talk page. Seriously, you would be much better off reasoning with everybody here- it's a 60:40 call as to whether it's a good idea or not, and had you made a cogent and reasoned argument for the inclusions you made, I am sure we could have come out at a decent compromise. My offer of help still stands if you want it, you're clearly willing (from your edits) to put in some work, even if your attitude belies that. If not, I'm sorry I couldn't be more help, and that I was a little off with you while we were reverting each other's edits, and I wish you all the best. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 11:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I have just reverted again (this is the fourth). Consensus is clear, that all of these notes are not needed on this page. Why are some kept and other not you ask? Because notes were kept on titles that you could not easily know who the main character(s) were from the title (ie. The Justice League, because they have an ever changing roster, and The Flash, because there have been multiple, popular incarnations). If the reader wants more info on the book, they can click on the title. PhoenixOroboros, your edits are not right for this page. Maybe the individual pages themselves, but I feel they already have all the info you have been adding. If Phoenix reverts back again, with out adding any substantial contributions to this discussion, I will report them on the Wikipedia:AN/EW. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering, if the follow ups and the crossover should/could be mentioned in the notes. E.g. Frankenstein is crossing over with Animal Man and OMAC, Mister Terrific's story is continued in Earth 2 and Blue Beetle in Threshold etc. It's not (always) written in the specific pages of the corresponding comics/characters and could be mentioned here instead. MasterPhW (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That info is better suited for the individual pages. So if you see something that isn't listed, feel free to add it on the individual pages! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next Wave[edit]

Has anyone been able to find a reliable source calling the upcoming series (Batman/Superman, Superman Unchained, Larfleeze, Green Team, The Movement, and Pandora) the Fifth Wave (or possibly even multiple waves, such as Five and Six, or even some in Four and others in Five)? I would assume they are the Fifth Wave, but I haven't found anything definite. Anyone else have any luck? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I've found using the terms Fifth Wave and so on have been fan sites, blog and forum posts. Nothing official or from a reputable source. || Tako (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publication Dates for Graphic Novels is messed up[edit]

It lists them alphabetically in months now, not by chronological release.

I intermittently look over the release dates, and it goes April-September, as the month names go alphabetically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.24.47 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the heads up! I've fixed the issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should back-ups be mentioned?[edit]

It kind of seems off, we mention backup features in a few table entries. In some, we mention the specific feature, while others it's just says "a back-up feature started in...". In others, we don't mention it at all. Should we mention /every/ backup the book has, or don't mention it at all? I'd think that's the kind of thing that would belong in each individual book's article. || Tako (bother me) || 00:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think some are worth noting, such as in Justice League and the Threshold ones. Only because those have content that is not a part of the main book (Shazam for JL and Larfleeze for Threshold, etc.). I understand what you are saying though, because it should be for all titles, or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should have them. A number of them are concerned about characters who will most likely not have their own titles. All-Star Western has a host of back-up stories, however. A more specific list for ASW should be on the title's individual page, but a list of the main characters in the backup features could be included in this page. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaving this here for future reference...[edit]

This may be true or not. Will wait to see how it pans out in next month's solicitations and it may be worthwhile to note somewhere on this page.

August 2013 was the last month that the titles were solicited by groups. Sources: August's Justice League group (showing the different groups still exist) The New 52 Group Solicit for October (not counting September because that month is weird with "Villains Month" happening, but all the titles are solicited under one group). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention the lack of solicits groups eventually, though it didn't seem important outside of the placement of Justice League 3000 and Superman/Wonder Woman. I'd wait until November 2013 solicits (or some announcements from SDCC) about the status of "families". This was a weird week in terms of solicits I think, as it followed a holiday (DC's offices are closed on July 4th, through the weekend.) || Tako (bother me) || 05:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm in no rush to add this. Just wanted to keep this here so I, or someone, would remember and the sources were here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The November solicites seemed to mostly be posted in respect to Zero Year and Forever Evil. Is it possible that the families will be back in April?(when Forever Evil ends) NTC TNT (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. But as of now they seem to be gone. DC could have easily kept the families, and as before, just made a note that it was a tie for something. But it now seems that they just want to group everything together into a "New 52 group". I know that they did away with the "waves" a while ago, so it doesn't surprise me that the families are gone. I think they were mainly to help people new to comics know what books fit where, etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, thats definitly a likelyhood, though incase you are thinking it, I dont think that we should get rid of the families on here because they are helpful for getting into comics still. I just got into the New 52 a couple months ago and this page helped me a lot, so I think we should keep it that way and maybe just guess where new titles would fall, like with Justice League 3000, Harley Quinn, and Superman/Wonder Woman, or make a new catagory on the page for titles started after they got rid of families. NTC TNT (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we were thinking of removing the families (at least now anyways). But we will have to find a way, like you suggested, to deal with any new titles that we don't have a clear cut idea where they should go. The three you mentioned were pretty easy to determine. And I'm glad you found this helpful. That's what we strive for. Make it informative and easy for Wiki-readers. And congrats on getting into the New 52! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Collected Editions edits?[edit]

Recently a lot of additions have been made to the "Collected Editions" sections, without any mention of sources. Can anyone point me to where all these newly added volumes have been officially announced? Has there been a post on the official DC website that I have missed? 92.225.200.202 (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero issues, Villain's month and annuals[edit]

Should these releases be listed with ongoing series? Annuals don't replace ongoing comic for that month and seam to be released depending on story content and sales of parent title since not all ongoing get annuals. Shouldn't they be listed in "other titles" category? Whats the big difference between Batman annual and Batman incorporated special? September is a month of gimmicks, first we got zero issues, now we got villains with 3D covers. Next year we might get #100000 issues or something along those lines. These issues "break" the flow of ongoing in the case of zero issues or "skip the month" for some titles in case of villains month. Point is that this is once-a-year publication event and could use its own separate category, maybe with a link to separate, more detailed, article about them? With this done we could remove "(0, 1- , plus 1 Annual)" information from publication date/issues column and notes about villains month that seam to clutter the tables. BlisterD (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the "(0, 1- , plus 1 Annual)" info should be removed, or that the annual info should be branched out. However, I do see your point on the September events, so I have created a table in my sandbox, if you'd like to take a look to see if you feel that would be good to add to the page. (Other can add input as well.) I put it together quickly, so it need a bit of clean up, but gives a general idea. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First thing that pops out is number of rows, maybe only series that participated in at least one of September events should be listed there? Next thing, a bit related to current version of this article too, do we need so many references for article about publications? For example newsrama and other sites have all solicits in one page - http://www.newsarama.com/18027-dc-villains-month-solicitations-all-52-in-one-place.html so is there any particular reason to have multiple references that highlight, for example, only Superman's villain month? I could understand it for articles that focus on specific series where creative team's inspirations and plans might be relevant, but this article is about publications so i think that such references here might be a bit out of place. BlisterD (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The per-family/per-group references are just a leftover from us adding things as they were announced; if you feel like it's important enough, and want to comb through those and replace them with a single reference, please go ahead. || Tako (bother me) || 20:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blister, for your issue with the rows, I had the same feeling, but felt it should just apply to titles that have N/A for both columns, and are no longer being published. That would remove 8 rows. And as for the sourcing, that can work. I can add that one source to the header for Villains Month on my page, and if we work on getting that set and are in agreement, we can just move the table to this page, and not worry about fixing the sourcing here, because we would be removing that info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tako, i think i'll try to clean up references (thou it will take some time), i also changed a bit were refs are put on my sandbox, tell me what you think. Ref to conclusion of the title is put near publication date (some are missing because i didn't have much time yesterday to track everything down) instead of notes column, there is a ref about title belonging to certain wave, in case of Movement/Green Team first publication is referenced since they were not a part of any wave. I also removed notes about title being canceled because majority of super hero comics end due to sales, in other words are canceled, so it does seam a bit redundant to mention it near discontinued series. On the other hand something like Batman Incorporated ending because it reached its conclusion and not due to sales/relaunch seams noteworthy. BlisterD (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just had an issue (pun) with your moving Teen Titans (vol 4) to the ended series section before the actual final issue is released (the 3rd Annual next week). At the very least update the series with third annuals (Flash comes to mind). Typically this page is very up to date but this really frustrated me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.234.66 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor! I was aware of the third annual when I made the edit. These numbers should not be updated until the issue actually releases (I'll be making that edit next week), but as for moving it to 'Discontinued', the Ongoing series has technically ended. Annuals for books (at least in my opinion) are not part of the "ongoing" nature of the title. I believe this because one could pick up the annual and (generally) read it as a One-shot. Just thinking in the grand scheme of this page, this is very minuscule and will be rectified next week. However, I think this would be an issue, if the move was done and multiple additional issues were still planning to release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are Future's End and Batman Eternal part of the 52?[edit]

Currently there are still only going to be 43 ongoing series (without these), but people are constantly speculating that not only are these 2 series part of the 52, but because they are weekly, they're counting as 8.

I realize that it has not been 52 for a really long time, so that's not what I am getting at.

I think perhaps these Maxiseries should be moved UP in the page so they're the first series under the general categories of the New 52, instead of below the finished mini series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.230.234 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not sure how they are being counted (because let's be honest, DC is really just using the "52" in "The New 52" for marketing now) the placement of the table on the page is fine, as noted in the lead, because DC has also counted the one-shots and miniseries in the "52" number. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would halfway agree, but I see that half the ones in the one shots are Director's cuts, which weren't separate entries in the 52 (Like the Valentine's one was), and neither were over half of the entries in the Mini Series (for example all of the earlier ones like Shade, were not in the numbering for 52 series)

And also because the One Shots and Mini Series are not ongoing, while Batman Eternal and Future's End is, it's more presently important to the current series that are alive. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.230.234 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations on having your list featured as the featured list today. Thank you to all the hard work of the contributors and editors to this article. You deserve recognition, appreciation, and a lot of applause.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of The New 52 imprint publications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on List of The New 52 imprint publications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_New_52_imprint_publications&oldid=1199555986"